Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic	N	Overall, N = 741	control, N = 371	treatment, N = 371	p-value2
age	74	50.70 ± 12.55 (25 - 74)	50.31 ± 13.37 (25 - 74)	51.09 ± 11.84 (31 - 72)	0.791
gender	74				0.802
f		51 (69%)	25 (68%)	26 (70%)
m		23 (31%)	12 (32%)	11 (30%)
occupation	74				0.884
day_training		2 (2.7%)	2 (5.4%)	0 (0%)
full_time		7 (9.5%)	4 (11%)	3 (8.1%)
homemaker		6 (8.1%)	3 (8.1%)	3 (8.1%)
other		2 (2.7%)	0 (0%)	2 (5.4%)
part_time		14 (19%)	7 (19%)	7 (19%)
retired		15 (20%)	7 (19%)	8 (22%)
self_employ		3 (4.1%)	1 (2.7%)	2 (5.4%)
student		1 (1.4%)	0 (0%)	1 (2.7%)
t_and_e		2 (2.7%)	1 (2.7%)	1 (2.7%)
unemploy		22 (30%)	12 (32%)	10 (27%)
marital	74				0.769
cohabitation		1 (1.4%)	0 (0%)	1 (2.7%)
divore		9 (12%)	6 (16%)	3 (8.1%)
married		16 (22%)	7 (19%)	9 (24%)
none		42 (57%)	21 (57%)	21 (57%)
seperation		3 (4.1%)	2 (5.4%)	1 (2.7%)
widow		3 (4.1%)	1 (2.7%)	2 (5.4%)
edu	74				0.954
bachelor		22 (30%)	9 (24%)	13 (35%)
diploma		13 (18%)	8 (22%)	5 (14%)
hd_ad		3 (4.1%)	2 (5.4%)	1 (2.7%)
postgraduate		6 (8.1%)	3 (8.1%)	3 (8.1%)
primary		5 (6.8%)	2 (5.4%)	3 (8.1%)
secondary_1_3		8 (11%)	4 (11%)	4 (11%)
secondary_4_5		15 (20%)	8 (22%)	7 (19%)
secondary_6_7		2 (2.7%)	1 (2.7%)	1 (2.7%)
fam_income	74				0.932
10001_12000		4 (5.4%)	1 (2.7%)	3 (8.1%)
12001_14000		4 (5.4%)	2 (5.4%)	2 (5.4%)
14001_16000		5 (6.8%)	2 (5.4%)	3 (8.1%)
16001_18000		2 (2.7%)	1 (2.7%)	1 (2.7%)
18001_20000		4 (5.4%)	3 (8.1%)	1 (2.7%)
20001_above		12 (16%)	6 (16%)	6 (16%)
2001_4000		10 (14%)	7 (19%)	3 (8.1%)
4001_6000		10 (14%)	4 (11%)	6 (16%)
6001_8000		7 (9.5%)	4 (11%)	3 (8.1%)
8001_10000		7 (9.5%)	3 (8.1%)	4 (11%)
below_2000		9 (12%)	4 (11%)	5 (14%)
medication	74	64 (86%)	33 (89%)	31 (84%)	0.496
onset_duration	74	15.35 ± 11.44 (0 - 56)	16.67 ± 12.76 (1 - 56)	14.03 ± 9.94 (0 - 35)	0.324
onset_age	74	35.35 ± 14.02 (14 - 64)	33.64 ± 13.39 (14 - 58)	37.06 ± 14.60 (15 - 64)	0.297
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic	N	Overall, N = 741	control, N = 371	treatment, N = 371	p-value2
recovery_stage_a	74	3.14 ± 1.22 (1 - 5)	3.11 ± 1.26 (1 - 5)	3.16 ± 1.19 (1 - 5)	0.850
recovery_stage_b	74	18.01 ± 2.60 (9 - 23)	17.95 ± 2.66 (9 - 23)	18.08 ± 2.59 (13 - 23)	0.825
ras_confidence	74	30.42 ± 4.75 (19 - 43)	29.89 ± 4.19 (19 - 40)	30.95 ± 5.26 (20 - 43)	0.344
ras_willingness	74	12.14 ± 1.96 (7 - 15)	11.92 ± 1.85 (9 - 15)	12.35 ± 2.07 (7 - 15)	0.346
ras_goal	74	17.57 ± 3.00 (12 - 24)	17.49 ± 2.93 (12 - 24)	17.65 ± 3.10 (12 - 24)	0.818
ras_reliance	74	13.18 ± 2.80 (8 - 20)	12.97 ± 2.58 (8 - 18)	13.38 ± 3.03 (8 - 20)	0.537
ras_domination	74	9.99 ± 2.30 (3 - 15)	10.51 ± 2.06 (6 - 15)	9.46 ± 2.42 (3 - 14)	0.048
symptom	74	30.14 ± 9.80 (14 - 56)	31.24 ± 9.60 (14 - 52)	29.03 ± 10.00 (15 - 56)	0.334
slof_work	74	22.80 ± 4.90 (10 - 30)	22.68 ± 4.44 (15 - 30)	22.92 ± 5.39 (10 - 30)	0.833
slof_relationship	74	25.82 ± 6.01 (11 - 35)	25.51 ± 6.17 (13 - 35)	26.14 ± 5.92 (11 - 35)	0.660
satisfaction	74	20.77 ± 6.83 (5 - 32)	19.22 ± 6.44 (5 - 29)	22.32 ± 6.94 (5 - 32)	0.050
mhc_emotional	74	11.20 ± 3.84 (3 - 18)	10.70 ± 3.41 (3 - 17)	11.70 ± 4.22 (4 - 18)	0.266
mhc_social	74	14.86 ± 5.47 (6 - 30)	15.16 ± 5.48 (7 - 30)	14.57 ± 5.51 (6 - 26)	0.643
mhc_psychological	74	22.28 ± 6.08 (6 - 36)	21.76 ± 5.69 (10 - 36)	22.81 ± 6.48 (6 - 36)	0.460
resilisnce	74	16.62 ± 4.53 (6 - 27)	16.32 ± 4.38 (6 - 24)	16.92 ± 4.72 (7 - 27)	0.576
social_provision	74	13.73 ± 2.98 (5 - 20)	13.30 ± 2.49 (8 - 20)	14.16 ± 3.37 (5 - 20)	0.214
els_value_living	74	17.28 ± 2.91 (5 - 25)	16.65 ± 2.34 (12 - 22)	17.92 ± 3.30 (5 - 25)	0.060
els_life_fulfill	74	12.82 ± 3.32 (4 - 20)	11.81 ± 3.04 (5 - 17)	13.84 ± 3.31 (4 - 20)	0.008
els	74	30.11 ± 5.61 (9 - 45)	28.46 ± 4.44 (20 - 36)	31.76 ± 6.21 (9 - 45)	0.010
social_connect	74	27.09 ± 9.47 (8 - 48)	27.95 ± 8.31 (8 - 45)	26.24 ± 10.55 (8 - 48)	0.443
shs_agency	74	14.53 ± 4.94 (3 - 24)	13.84 ± 4.52 (3 - 21)	15.22 ± 5.30 (3 - 24)	0.233
shs_pathway	74	16.62 ± 3.98 (4 - 24)	16.11 ± 3.81 (8 - 24)	17.14 ± 4.14 (4 - 23)	0.270
shs	74	31.15 ± 8.47 (7 - 47)	29.95 ± 7.97 (13 - 45)	32.35 ± 8.89 (7 - 47)	0.224
esteem	74	12.64 ± 1.52 (10 - 18)	12.86 ± 1.55 (10 - 18)	12.41 ± 1.48 (10 - 16)	0.196
mlq_search	74	14.91 ± 3.30 (3 - 21)	14.84 ± 3.09 (6 - 21)	14.97 ± 3.54 (3 - 21)	0.862
mlq_presence	74	13.49 ± 4.08 (3 - 21)	13.41 ± 3.50 (5 - 20)	13.57 ± 4.64 (3 - 21)	0.866
mlq	74	28.39 ± 6.56 (6 - 42)	28.24 ± 5.79 (12 - 40)	28.54 ± 7.32 (6 - 42)	0.847
empower	74	19.54 ± 4.09 (6 - 28)	19.08 ± 3.71 (11 - 24)	20.00 ± 4.43 (6 - 28)	0.337
ismi_resistance	74	14.68 ± 2.70 (5 - 20)	14.32 ± 2.21 (11 - 19)	15.03 ± 3.10 (5 - 20)	0.266
ismi_discrimation	74	11.26 ± 3.19 (5 - 19)	12.22 ± 2.79 (5 - 18)	10.30 ± 3.31 (5 - 19)	0.009
sss_affective	74	9.92 ± 3.78 (3 - 18)	10.43 ± 3.44 (3 - 18)	9.41 ± 4.08 (3 - 18)	0.246
sss_behavior	74	9.51 ± 3.99 (3 - 18)	10.27 ± 3.96 (3 - 18)	8.76 ± 3.93 (3 - 18)	0.104
sss_cognitive	74	8.24 ± 3.96 (3 - 18)	8.59 ± 4.15 (3 - 18)	7.89 ± 3.78 (3 - 18)	0.449
sss	74	27.68 ± 10.88 (9 - 54)	29.30 ± 10.41 (9 - 54)	26.05 ± 11.23 (9 - 54)	0.202
1Mean ± SD (Range)
2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group	Characteristic	Beta	SE1	95% CI1	p-value
recovery_stage_a	(Intercept)	3.11	0.198	2.72, 3.50
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.054	0.280	-0.495, 0.603	0.847
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.162	0.287	-0.400, 0.724	0.574
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.131	0.406	-0.664, 0.926	0.748
	Pseudo R square	0.010
recovery_stage_b	(Intercept)	17.9	0.437	17.1, 18.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.135	0.618	-1.08, 1.35	0.827
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.386	0.597	-1.56, 0.785	0.521
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.876	0.845	-0.780, 2.53	0.304
	Pseudo R square	0.013
ras_confidence	(Intercept)	29.9	0.820	28.3, 31.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.05	1.159	-1.22, 3.33	0.366
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.316	0.811	-1.27, 1.91	0.698
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.406	1.147	-1.84, 2.65	0.725
	Pseudo R square	0.017
ras_willingness	(Intercept)	11.9	0.329	11.3, 12.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.432	0.466	-0.480, 1.34	0.356
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.633	0.319	-1.26, -0.009	0.053
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.533	0.451	-0.351, 1.42	0.243
	Pseudo R square	0.035
ras_goal	(Intercept)	17.5	0.516	16.5, 18.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.162	0.730	-1.27, 1.59	0.825
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.912	0.551	-1.99, 0.168	0.105
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.61	0.780	0.084, 3.14	0.044
	Pseudo R square	0.028
ras_reliance	(Intercept)	13.0	0.449	12.1, 13.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.405	0.635	-0.840, 1.65	0.525
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.454	0.408	-0.346, 1.25	0.272
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.534	0.577	-0.597, 1.67	0.360
	Pseudo R square	0.029
ras_domination	(Intercept)	10.5	0.367	9.80, 11.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.05	0.518	-2.07, -0.038	0.045
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.634	0.467	-1.55, 0.281	0.181
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.50	0.660	0.209, 2.80	0.027
	Pseudo R square	0.039
symptom	(Intercept)	31.2	1.607	28.1, 34.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-2.22	2.272	-6.67, 2.24	0.332
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.066	1.168	-2.22, 2.36	0.955
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.702	1.652	-3.94, 2.54	0.673
	Pseudo R square	0.016
slof_work	(Intercept)	22.7	0.812	21.1, 24.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.243	1.148	-2.01, 2.49	0.833
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.723	0.621	-1.94, 0.495	0.251
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.446	0.879	-2.17, 1.28	0.614
	Pseudo R square	0.009
slof_relationship	(Intercept)	25.5	0.979	23.6, 27.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.622	1.384	-2.09, 3.33	0.655
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-1.06	0.895	-2.81, 0.699	0.245
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.740	1.266	-1.74, 3.22	0.562
	Pseudo R square	0.009
satisfaction	(Intercept)	19.2	1.136	17.0, 21.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	3.11	1.607	-0.042, 6.26	0.056
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.745	1.169	-1.55, 3.04	0.527
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.28	1.653	-4.52, 1.96	0.441
	Pseudo R square	0.038
mhc_emotional	(Intercept)	10.7	0.625	9.48, 11.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.00	0.883	-0.731, 2.73	0.261
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.482	0.533	-0.563, 1.53	0.371
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.19	0.754	-2.67, 0.287	0.122
	Pseudo R square	0.012
mhc_social	(Intercept)	15.2	0.929	13.3, 17.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.595	1.313	-3.17, 1.98	0.652
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.08	0.894	-0.668, 2.83	0.232
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.56	1.264	-4.04, 0.912	0.223
	Pseudo R square	0.015
mhc_psychological	(Intercept)	21.8	1.045	19.7, 23.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.05	1.478	-1.84, 3.95	0.478
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.643	1.024	-1.36, 2.65	0.533
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.52	1.448	-4.36, 1.32	0.300
	Pseudo R square	0.005
resilisnce	(Intercept)	16.3	0.713	14.9, 17.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.595	1.009	-1.38, 2.57	0.557
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.163	0.726	-1.26, 1.59	0.823
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.571	1.027	-1.44, 2.58	0.581
	Pseudo R square	0.012
social_provision	(Intercept)	13.3	0.496	12.3, 14.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.865	0.702	-0.511, 2.24	0.221
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.940	0.551	-2.02, 0.141	0.095
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.849	0.780	-0.680, 2.38	0.282
	Pseudo R square	0.046
els_value_living	(Intercept)	16.6	0.476	15.7, 17.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.27	0.673	-0.049, 2.59	0.063
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.276	0.453	-0.611, 1.16	0.545
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.087	0.640	-1.34, 1.17	0.892
	Pseudo R square	0.046
els_life_fulfill	(Intercept)	11.8	0.507	10.8, 12.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	2.03	0.717	0.622, 3.43	0.006
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.914	0.482	-0.031, 1.86	0.065
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.935	0.682	-2.27, 0.401	0.177
	Pseudo R square	0.080
els	(Intercept)	28.5	0.883	26.7, 30.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	3.30	1.248	0.851, 5.74	0.010
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.17	0.767	-0.337, 2.67	0.136
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.975	1.084	-3.10, 1.15	0.374
	Pseudo R square	0.076
social_connect	(Intercept)	27.9	1.560	24.9, 31.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.70	2.206	-6.03, 2.62	0.442
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.755	1.154	-1.51, 3.02	0.516
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.27	1.632	-4.47, 1.93	0.440
	Pseudo R square	0.014
shs_agency	(Intercept)	13.8	0.811	12.2, 15.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.38	1.147	-0.870, 3.63	0.233
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.290	0.774	-1.23, 1.81	0.710
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.251	1.095	-1.90, 2.40	0.820
	Pseudo R square	0.023
shs_pathway	(Intercept)	16.1	0.652	14.8, 17.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.03	0.923	-0.781, 2.84	0.269
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.372	0.598	-0.800, 1.54	0.537
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.620	0.846	-2.28, 1.04	0.467
	Pseudo R square	0.012
shs	(Intercept)	29.9	1.381	27.2, 32.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	2.41	1.953	-1.42, 6.23	0.222
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.663	1.248	-1.78, 3.11	0.598
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.360	1.764	-3.82, 3.10	0.840
	Pseudo R square	0.019
esteem	(Intercept)	12.9	0.233	12.4, 13.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.459	0.330	-1.11, 0.187	0.167
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.152	0.353	-0.540, 0.844	0.669
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.182	0.499	-0.796, 1.16	0.718
	Pseudo R square	0.027
mlq_search	(Intercept)	14.8	0.551	13.8, 15.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.135	0.779	-1.39, 1.66	0.863
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.396	0.656	-1.68, 0.891	0.549
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.336	0.928	-1.48, 2.16	0.719
	Pseudo R square	0.003
mlq_presence	(Intercept)	13.4	0.659	12.1, 14.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.162	0.932	-1.66, 1.99	0.862
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.079	0.732	-1.51, 1.36	0.915
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.058	1.036	-1.97, 2.09	0.955
	Pseudo R square	0.001
mlq	(Intercept)	28.2	1.095	26.1, 30.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.297	1.549	-2.74, 3.33	0.848
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.475	1.246	-2.92, 1.97	0.705
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.387	1.763	-3.07, 3.84	0.827
	Pseudo R square	0.002
empower	(Intercept)	19.1	0.655	17.8, 20.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.919	0.926	-0.897, 2.73	0.324
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.255	0.574	-1.38, 0.870	0.659
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.393	0.812	-1.98, 1.20	0.631
	Pseudo R square	0.013
ismi_resistance	(Intercept)	14.3	0.416	13.5, 15.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.703	0.589	-0.452, 1.86	0.236
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.165	0.551	-0.915, 1.24	0.766
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.337	0.779	-1.86, 1.19	0.667
	Pseudo R square	0.014
ismi_discrimation	(Intercept)	12.2	0.514	11.2, 13.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.92	0.728	-3.34, -0.493	0.010
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.518	0.536	-1.57, 0.533	0.339
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.683	0.758	-0.804, 2.17	0.373
	Pseudo R square	0.071
sss_affective	(Intercept)	10.4	0.600	9.26, 11.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.03	0.849	-2.69, 0.636	0.230
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.221	0.509	-0.776, 1.22	0.666
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.20	0.720	-2.61, 0.207	0.102
	Pseudo R square	0.046
sss_behavior	(Intercept)	10.3	0.622	9.05, 11.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.51	0.879	-3.24, 0.210	0.089
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.249	0.620	-1.47, 0.967	0.690
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.553	0.877	-2.27, 1.17	0.532
	Pseudo R square	0.054
sss_cognitive	(Intercept)	8.59	0.639	7.34, 9.85
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.703	0.903	-2.47, 1.07	0.439
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.02	0.514	0.015, 2.03	0.053
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.96	0.727	-3.39, -0.537	0.010
	Pseudo R square	0.045
sss	(Intercept)	29.3	1.728	25.9, 32.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-3.24	2.444	-8.03, 1.55	0.188
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.06	1.327	-1.54, 3.66	0.428
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-3.77	1.876	-7.45, -0.092	0.051
	Pseudo R square	0.053
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.34) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.11 (95% CI [2.72, 3.50], t(108) = 15.69, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.60], t(108) = 0.19, p = 0.847; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.50])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.72], t(108) = 0.57, p = 0.572; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.60])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.93], t(108) = 0.32, p = 0.747; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.77])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.43) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.95 (95% CI [17.09, 18.80], t(108) = 41.05, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-1.08, 1.35], t(108) = 0.22, p = 0.827; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.51])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.56, 0.78], t(108) = -0.65, p = 0.519; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.30])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.88, 95% CI [-0.78, 2.53], t(108) = 1.04, p = 0.300; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.96])

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.89 (95% CI [28.29, 31.50], t(108) = 36.47, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.05, 95% CI [-1.22, 3.33], t(108) = 0.91, p = 0.363; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.67])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-1.27, 1.91], t(108) = 0.39, p = 0.696; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.38])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-1.84, 2.65], t(108) = 0.35, p = 0.723; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.53])

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.92 (95% CI [11.27, 12.56], t(108) = 36.21, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.48, 1.34], t(108) = 0.93, p = 0.353; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.67])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-1.26, -8.62e-03], t(108) = -1.99, p = 0.047; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.62, -4.28e-03])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.35, 1.42], t(108) = 1.18, p = 0.237; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.70])

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.49 (95% CI [16.48, 18.50], t(108) = 33.89, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-1.27, 1.59], t(108) = 0.22, p = 0.824; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.50])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.91, 95% CI [-1.99, 0.17], t(108) = -1.65, p = 0.098; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.05])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.61, 95% CI [0.08, 3.14], t(108) = 2.07, p = 0.039; Std. beta = 0.51, 95% CI [0.03, 0.99])

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.97 (95% CI [12.09, 13.85], t(108) = 28.88, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.84, 1.65], t(108) = 0.64, p = 0.523; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.58])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.35, 1.25], t(108) = 1.11, p = 0.266; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.44])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.67], t(108) = 0.93, p = 0.355; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.59])

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.53) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.51 (95% CI [9.80, 11.23], t(108) = 28.68, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.05, 95% CI [-2.07, -0.04], t(108) = -2.03, p = 0.042; Std. beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-0.93, -0.02])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-1.55, 0.28], t(108) = -1.36, p = 0.175; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.13])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.50, 95% CI [0.21, 2.80], t(108) = 2.28, p = 0.023; Std. beta = 0.67, 95% CI [0.09, 1.25])

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.24 (95% CI [28.09, 34.39], t(108) = 19.44, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.22, 95% CI [-6.67, 2.24], t(108) = -0.98, p = 0.329; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.23])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-2.22, 2.36], t(108) = 0.06, p = 0.955; Std. beta = 6.73e-03, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.24])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.70, 95% CI [-3.94, 2.54], t(108) = -0.43, p = 0.671; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.26])

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.90e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.68 (95% CI [21.08, 24.27], t(108) = 27.94, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-2.01, 2.49], t(108) = 0.21, p = 0.832; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.51])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.72, 95% CI [-1.94, 0.50], t(108) = -1.16, p = 0.245; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.10])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-2.17, 1.28], t(108) = -0.51, p = 0.611; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.26])

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.38e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.51 (95% CI [23.60, 27.43], t(108) = 26.07, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-2.09, 3.33], t(108) = 0.45, p = 0.653; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.57])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.06, 95% CI [-2.81, 0.70], t(108) = -1.18, p = 0.238; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.12])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-1.74, 3.22], t(108) = 0.58, p = 0.559; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.55])

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.22 (95% CI [16.99, 21.44], t(108) = 16.91, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.11, 95% CI [-0.04, 6.26], t(108) = 1.93, p = 0.053; Std. beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-5.94e-03, 0.89])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-1.55, 3.04], t(108) = 0.64, p = 0.524; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.43])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.28, 95% CI [-4.52, 1.96], t(108) = -0.78, p = 0.437; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.28])

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.70 (95% CI [9.48, 11.93], t(108) = 17.13, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-0.73, 2.73], t(108) = 1.13, p = 0.258; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.73])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-0.56, 1.53], t(108) = 0.90, p = 0.366; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.41])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.19, 95% CI [-2.67, 0.29], t(108) = -1.58, p = 0.114; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.08])

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.16 (95% CI [13.34, 16.98], t(108) = 16.33, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-3.17, 1.98], t(108) = -0.45, p = 0.651; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.36])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.08, 95% CI [-0.67, 2.83], t(108) = 1.21, p = 0.225; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.51])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.56, 95% CI [-4.04, 0.91], t(108) = -1.24, p = 0.216; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.17])

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.03e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.76 (95% CI [19.71, 23.80], t(108) = 20.82, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.05, 95% CI [-1.84, 3.95], t(108) = 0.71, p = 0.476; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.62])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-1.36, 2.65], t(108) = 0.63, p = 0.530; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.42])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.52, 95% CI [-4.36, 1.32], t(108) = -1.05, p = 0.295; Std. beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.21])

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.32 (95% CI [14.93, 17.72], t(108) = 22.89, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-1.38, 2.57], t(108) = 0.59, p = 0.555; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.60])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-1.26, 1.59], t(108) = 0.22, p = 0.822; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.37])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-1.44, 2.58], t(108) = 0.56, p = 0.578; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.60])

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.30 (95% CI [12.32, 14.27], t(108) = 26.80, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-0.51, 2.24], t(108) = 1.23, p = 0.218; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.73])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.94, 95% CI [-2.02, 0.14], t(108) = -1.70, p = 0.088; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.05])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.68, 2.38], t(108) = 1.09, p = 0.276; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.77])

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.65 (95% CI [15.72, 17.58], t(108) = 34.97, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.27, 95% CI [-0.05, 2.59], t(108) = 1.89, p = 0.059; Std. beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.87])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.61, 1.16], t(108) = 0.61, p = 0.542; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.39])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-1.34, 1.17], t(108) = -0.14, p = 0.892; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.39])

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.08. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.81 (95% CI [10.82, 12.80], t(108) = 23.30, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.03, 95% CI [0.62, 3.43], t(108) = 2.83, p = 0.005; Std. beta = 0.64, 95% CI [0.20, 1.08])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-0.03, 1.86], t(108) = 1.90, p = 0.058; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-9.70e-03, 0.58])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.94, 95% CI [-2.27, 0.40], t(108) = -1.37, p = 0.170; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.13])

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.08. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.46 (95% CI [26.73, 30.19], t(108) = 32.25, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.30, 95% CI [0.85, 5.74], t(108) = 2.64, p = 0.008; Std. beta = 0.59, 95% CI [0.15, 1.03])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.17, 95% CI [-0.34, 2.67], t(108) = 1.52, p = 0.128; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.48])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.97, 95% CI [-3.10, 1.15], t(108) = -0.90, p = 0.369; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.21])

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.95 (95% CI [24.89, 31.00], t(108) = 17.92, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.70, 95% CI [-6.03, 2.62], t(108) = -0.77, p = 0.440; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.27])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-1.51, 3.02], t(108) = 0.65, p = 0.513; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.31])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.27, 95% CI [-4.47, 1.93], t(108) = -0.78, p = 0.435; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.20])

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.84 (95% CI [12.25, 15.43], t(108) = 17.06, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.38, 95% CI [-0.87, 3.63], t(108) = 1.20, p = 0.230; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.74])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-1.23, 1.81], t(108) = 0.37, p = 0.708; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.37])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-1.90, 2.40], t(108) = 0.23, p = 0.819; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.49])

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.11 (95% CI [14.83, 17.39], t(108) = 24.69, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.03, 95% CI [-0.78, 2.84], t(108) = 1.11, p = 0.266; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.73])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.80, 1.54], t(108) = 0.62, p = 0.534; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.39])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.62, 95% CI [-2.28, 1.04], t(108) = -0.73, p = 0.463; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.27])

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.95 (95% CI [27.24, 32.65], t(108) = 21.68, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.41, 95% CI [-1.42, 6.23], t(108) = 1.23, p = 0.218; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.75])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-1.78, 3.11], t(108) = 0.53, p = 0.595; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.37])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-3.82, 3.10], t(108) = -0.20, p = 0.839; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.37])

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.27) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.86 (95% CI [12.41, 13.32], t(108) = 55.18, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-1.11, 0.19], t(108) = -1.39, p = 0.163; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.79, 0.13])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.84], t(108) = 0.43, p = 0.667; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.60])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.80, 1.16], t(108) = 0.36, p = 0.716; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.82])

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.07e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.84 (95% CI [13.76, 15.92], t(108) = 26.95, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-1.39, 1.66], t(108) = 0.17, p = 0.862; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.50])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-1.68, 0.89], t(108) = -0.60, p = 0.546; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.27])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-1.48, 2.16], t(108) = 0.36, p = 0.717; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.65])

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.70e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.41 (95% CI [12.11, 14.70], t(108) = 20.35, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-1.66, 1.99], t(108) = 0.17, p = 0.862; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.50])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.51, 1.36], t(108) = -0.11, p = 0.915; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.34])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-1.97, 2.09], t(108) = 0.06, p = 0.955; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.53])

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.67e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.24 (95% CI [26.10, 30.39], t(108) = 25.79, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-2.74, 3.33], t(108) = 0.19, p = 0.848; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.50])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-2.92, 1.97], t(108) = -0.38, p = 0.703; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.30])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-3.07, 3.84], t(108) = 0.22, p = 0.826; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.58])

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.08 (95% CI [17.80, 20.37], t(108) = 29.13, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-0.90, 2.73], t(108) = 0.99, p = 0.321; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.69])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-1.38, 0.87], t(108) = -0.44, p = 0.657; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.22])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.98, 1.20], t(108) = -0.48, p = 0.628; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.30])

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.47) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.32 (95% CI [13.51, 15.14], t(108) = 34.40, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.45, 1.86], t(108) = 1.19, p = 0.233; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.74])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.91, 1.24], t(108) = 0.30, p = 0.765; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.50])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-1.86, 1.19], t(108) = -0.43, p = 0.665; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.47])

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.22 (95% CI [11.21, 13.22], t(108) = 23.75, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.92, 95% CI [-3.34, -0.49], t(108) = -2.64, p = 0.008; Std. beta = -0.60, 95% CI [-1.04, -0.15])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-1.57, 0.53], t(108) = -0.97, p = 0.334; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.17])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-0.80, 2.17], t(108) = 0.90, p = 0.368; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.68])

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.43 (95% CI [9.26, 11.61], t(108) = 17.38, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.03, 95% CI [-2.69, 0.64], t(108) = -1.21, p = 0.226; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.17])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.78, 1.22], t(108) = 0.43, p = 0.664; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.32])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.20, 95% CI [-2.61, 0.21], t(108) = -1.67, p = 0.094; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.05])

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.27 (95% CI [9.05, 11.49], t(108) = 16.52, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.51, 95% CI [-3.24, 0.21], t(108) = -1.72, p = 0.085; Std. beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.05])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-1.47, 0.97], t(108) = -0.40, p = 0.688; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.25])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.55, 95% CI [-2.27, 1.17], t(108) = -0.63, p = 0.529; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.30])

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.59 (95% CI [7.34, 9.85], t(108) = 13.46, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.70, 95% CI [-2.47, 1.07], t(108) = -0.78, p = 0.436; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.28])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [0.01, 2.03], t(108) = 1.99, p = 0.047; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [3.80e-03, 0.53])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.96, 95% CI [-3.39, -0.54], t(108) = -2.70, p = 0.007; Std. beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-0.88, -0.14])

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.30 (95% CI [25.91, 32.68], t(108) = 16.95, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.24, 95% CI [-8.03, 1.55], t(108) = -1.33, p = 0.185; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.14])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.06, 95% CI [-1.54, 3.66], t(108) = 0.80, p = 0.424; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.34])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -3.77, 95% CI [-7.45, -0.09], t(108) = -2.01, p = 0.045; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.69, -8.58e-03])

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome	model	npar	AIC	BIC	logLik	deviance	Chisq	Df	p
recovery_stage_a	null	3	364.816	373.024	-179.408	358.816
recovery_stage_a	random	6	369.286	385.703	-178.643	357.286	1.530	3	0.675
recovery_stage_b	null	3	542.424	550.633	-268.212	536.424
recovery_stage_b	random	6	546.757	563.174	-267.379	534.757	1.667	3	0.644
ras_confidence	null	3	665.000	673.208	-329.500	659.000
ras_confidence	random	6	668.883	685.300	-328.441	656.883	2.117	3	0.548
ras_willingness	null	3	459.040	467.248	-226.520	453.040
ras_willingness	random	6	459.345	475.763	-223.673	447.345	5.695	3	0.127
ras_goal	null	3	568.026	576.235	-281.013	562.026
ras_goal	random	6	568.796	585.213	-278.398	556.796	5.230	3	0.156
ras_reliance	null	3	527.416	535.625	-260.708	521.416
ras_reliance	random	6	525.562	541.980	-256.781	513.562	7.854	3	0.049
ras_domination	null	3	503.246	511.454	-248.623	497.246
ras_domination	random	6	502.451	518.868	-245.226	490.451	6.795	3	0.079
symptom	null	3	794.945	803.154	-394.472	788.945
symptom	random	6	799.422	815.839	-393.711	787.422	1.523	3	0.677
slof_work	null	3	646.475	654.683	-320.237	640.475
slof_work	random	6	647.615	664.033	-317.808	635.615	4.859	3	0.182
slof_relationship	null	3	699.561	707.769	-346.780	693.561
slof_relationship	random	6	703.625	720.042	-345.813	691.625	1.935	3	0.586
satisfaction	null	3	743.957	752.166	-368.979	737.957
satisfaction	random	6	746.110	762.527	-367.055	734.110	3.847	3	0.278
mhc_emotional	null	3	593.388	601.596	-293.694	587.388
mhc_emotional	random	6	596.146	612.563	-292.073	584.146	3.241	3	0.356
mhc_social	null	3	691.850	700.059	-342.925	685.850
mhc_social	random	6	695.345	711.762	-341.673	683.345	2.505	3	0.474
mhc_psychological	null	3	718.905	727.114	-356.453	712.905
mhc_psychological	random	6	723.550	739.967	-355.775	711.550	1.356	3	0.716
resilisnce	null	3	634.913	643.121	-314.456	628.913
resilisnce	random	6	639.164	655.582	-313.582	627.164	1.748	3	0.626
social_provision	null	3	562.428	570.637	-278.214	556.428
social_provision	random	6	562.621	579.038	-275.310	550.621	5.808	3	0.121
els_value_living	null	3	540.454	548.662	-267.227	534.454
els_value_living	random	6	542.151	558.568	-265.075	530.151	4.303	3	0.231
els_life_fulfill	null	3	560.445	568.654	-277.223	554.445
els_life_fulfill	random	6	556.453	572.870	-272.226	544.453	9.993	3	0.019
els	null	3	678.785	686.993	-336.392	672.785
els	random	6	676.219	692.636	-332.110	664.219	8.565	3	0.036
social_connect	null	3	789.549	797.758	-391.775	783.549
social_connect	random	6	793.961	810.378	-390.980	781.961	1.588	3	0.662
shs_agency	null	3	660.340	668.548	-327.170	654.340
shs_agency	random	6	663.922	680.340	-325.961	651.922	2.417	3	0.490
shs_pathway	null	3	606.774	614.982	-300.387	600.774
shs_pathway	random	6	611.259	627.676	-299.629	599.259	1.515	3	0.679
shs	null	3	777.072	785.281	-385.536	771.072
shs	random	6	781.198	797.615	-384.599	769.198	1.874	3	0.599
esteem	null	3	405.540	413.749	-199.770	399.540
esteem	random	6	408.460	424.877	-198.230	396.460	3.080	3	0.379
mlq_search	null	3	585.528	593.737	-289.764	579.528
mlq_search	random	6	591.032	607.449	-289.516	579.032	0.496	3	0.920
mlq_presence	null	3	621.279	629.487	-307.639	615.279
mlq_presence	random	6	627.221	643.639	-307.611	615.221	0.057	3	0.996
mlq	null	3	738.974	747.182	-366.487	732.974
mlq	random	6	744.732	761.150	-366.366	732.732	0.241	3	0.971
empower	null	3	605.274	613.483	-299.637	599.274
empower	random	6	608.931	625.348	-298.465	596.931	2.344	3	0.504
ismi_resistance	null	3	529.306	537.514	-261.653	523.306
ismi_resistance	random	6	533.840	550.257	-260.920	521.840	1.465	3	0.690
ismi_discrimation	null	3	567.533	575.741	-280.766	561.533
ismi_discrimation	random	6	566.388	582.805	-277.194	554.388	7.145	3	0.067
sss_affective	null	3	587.208	595.416	-290.604	581.208
sss_affective	random	6	586.490	602.907	-287.245	574.490	6.717	3	0.081
sss_behavior	null	3	606.310	614.519	-300.155	600.310
sss_behavior	random	6	606.477	622.894	-297.238	594.477	5.833	3	0.120
sss_cognitive	null	3	599.592	607.800	-296.796	593.592
sss_cognitive	random	6	596.744	613.161	-292.372	584.744	8.847	3	0.031
sss	null	3	822.189	830.398	-408.095	816.189
sss	random	6	820.167	836.584	-404.083	808.167	8.022	3	0.046

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome	time	control			treatment			between
outcome	time	n	estimate	within es	n	estimate	within es	p	es
recovery_stage_a	1st	37	3.11 ± 1.20		37	3.16 ± 1.20		0.847	-0.055
recovery_stage_a	2nd	20	3.27 ± 1.19	-0.164	20	3.46 ± 1.19	-0.297	0.623	-0.187
recovery_stage_b	1st	37	17.95 ± 2.66		37	18.08 ± 2.66		0.827	-0.067
recovery_stage_b	2nd	20	17.56 ± 2.57	0.190	20	18.57 ± 2.57	-0.242	0.217	-0.498
ras_confidence	1st	37	29.89 ± 4.99		37	30.95 ± 4.99		0.366	-0.397
ras_confidence	2nd	20	30.21 ± 4.37	-0.119	20	31.67 ± 4.37	-0.273	0.293	-0.551
ras_willingness	1st	37	11.92 ± 2.00		37	12.35 ± 2.00		0.356	-0.415
ras_willingness	2nd	20	11.29 ± 1.75	0.609	20	12.25 ± 1.75	0.096	0.083	-0.928
ras_goal	1st	37	17.49 ± 3.14		37	17.65 ± 3.14		0.825	-0.089
ras_goal	2nd	20	16.57 ± 2.81	0.503	20	18.35 ± 2.81	-0.386	0.048	-0.978
ras_reliance	1st	37	12.97 ± 2.73		37	13.38 ± 2.73		0.525	-0.305
ras_reliance	2nd	20	13.43 ± 2.34	-0.342	20	14.37 ± 2.34	-0.744	0.208	-0.708
ras_domination	1st	37	10.51 ± 2.23		37	9.46 ± 2.23		0.045	0.672
ras_domination	2nd	20	9.88 ± 2.11	0.404	20	10.33 ± 2.11	-0.555	0.502	-0.286
symptom	1st	37	31.24 ± 9.77		37	29.03 ± 9.77		0.332	0.590
symptom	2nd	20	31.31 ± 7.99	-0.018	20	28.39 ± 7.99	0.169	0.251	0.776
slof_work	1st	37	22.68 ± 4.94		37	22.92 ± 4.94		0.833	-0.121
slof_work	2nd	20	21.95 ± 4.07	0.361	20	21.75 ± 4.07	0.584	0.875	0.101
slof_relationship	1st	37	25.51 ± 5.95		37	26.14 ± 5.95		0.655	-0.213
slof_relationship	2nd	20	24.46 ± 5.11	0.363	20	25.82 ± 5.11	0.109	0.402	-0.467
satisfaction	1st	37	19.22 ± 6.91		37	22.32 ± 6.91		0.056	-0.811
satisfaction	2nd	20	19.96 ± 6.13	-0.194	20	21.79 ± 6.13	0.140	0.348	-0.476
mhc_emotional	1st	37	10.70 ± 3.80		37	11.70 ± 3.80		0.261	-0.579
mhc_emotional	2nd	20	11.18 ± 3.21	-0.279	20	10.99 ± 3.21	0.410	0.851	0.111
mhc_social	1st	37	15.16 ± 5.65		37	14.57 ± 5.65		0.652	0.204
mhc_social	2nd	20	16.25 ± 4.92	-0.371	20	14.09 ± 4.92	0.165	0.168	0.740
mhc_psychological	1st	37	21.76 ± 6.36		37	22.81 ± 6.36		0.478	-0.315
mhc_psychological	2nd	20	22.40 ± 5.56	-0.192	20	21.94 ± 5.56	0.262	0.792	0.139
resilisnce	1st	37	16.32 ± 4.34		37	16.92 ± 4.34		0.557	-0.250
resilisnce	2nd	20	16.49 ± 3.83	-0.069	20	17.65 ± 3.83	-0.309	0.338	-0.490
social_provision	1st	37	13.30 ± 3.02		37	14.16 ± 3.02		0.221	-0.475
social_provision	2nd	20	12.36 ± 2.74	0.516	20	14.07 ± 2.74	0.050	0.050	-0.941
els_value_living	1st	37	16.65 ± 2.90		37	17.92 ± 2.90		0.063	-0.860
els_value_living	2nd	20	16.92 ± 2.51	-0.187	20	18.11 ± 2.51	-0.128	0.139	-0.801
els_life_fulfill	1st	37	11.81 ± 3.08		37	13.84 ± 3.08		0.006	-1.289
els_life_fulfill	2nd	20	12.73 ± 2.67	-0.581	20	13.82 ± 2.67	0.013	0.199	-0.694
els	1st	37	28.46 ± 5.37		37	31.76 ± 5.37		0.010	-1.326
els	2nd	20	29.63 ± 4.55	-0.469	20	31.95 ± 4.55	-0.077	0.110	-0.934
social_connect	1st	37	27.95 ± 9.49		37	26.24 ± 9.49		0.442	0.458
social_connect	2nd	20	28.70 ± 7.78	-0.203	20	25.73 ± 7.78	0.139	0.229	0.801
shs_agency	1st	37	13.84 ± 4.93		37	15.22 ± 4.93		0.233	-0.546
shs_agency	2nd	20	14.13 ± 4.28	-0.115	20	15.76 ± 4.28	-0.214	0.232	-0.645
shs_pathway	1st	37	16.11 ± 3.97		37	17.14 ± 3.97		0.269	-0.528
shs_pathway	2nd	20	16.48 ± 3.41	-0.191	20	16.89 ± 3.41	0.128	0.707	-0.209
shs	1st	37	29.95 ± 8.40		37	32.35 ± 8.40		0.222	-0.593
shs	2nd	20	30.61 ± 7.19	-0.163	20	32.65 ± 7.19	-0.075	0.370	-0.504
esteem	1st	37	12.86 ± 1.42		37	12.41 ± 1.42		0.166	0.375
esteem	2nd	20	13.02 ± 1.41	-0.124	20	12.74 ± 1.41	-0.272	0.535	0.226
mlq_search	1st	37	14.84 ± 3.35		37	14.97 ± 3.35		0.863	-0.062
mlq_search	2nd	20	14.44 ± 3.10	0.181	20	14.91 ± 3.10	0.027	0.632	-0.216
mlq_presence	1st	37	13.41 ± 4.01		37	13.57 ± 4.01		0.862	-0.067
mlq_presence	2nd	20	13.33 ± 3.63	0.032	20	13.55 ± 3.63	0.008	0.848	-0.091
mlq	1st	37	28.24 ± 6.66		37	28.54 ± 6.66		0.848	-0.072
mlq	2nd	20	27.77 ± 6.08	0.115	20	28.45 ± 6.08	0.021	0.723	-0.166
empower	1st	37	19.08 ± 3.98		37	20.00 ± 3.98		0.324	-0.493
empower	2nd	20	18.83 ± 3.39	0.137	20	19.35 ± 3.39	0.348	0.624	-0.282
ismi_resistance	1st	37	14.32 ± 2.53		37	15.03 ± 2.53		0.236	-0.378
ismi_resistance	2nd	20	14.49 ± 2.43	-0.089	20	14.85 ± 2.43	0.093	0.635	-0.196
ismi_discrimation	1st	37	12.22 ± 3.13		37	10.30 ± 3.13		0.010	1.090
ismi_discrimation	2nd	20	11.70 ± 2.78	0.294	20	10.46 ± 2.78	-0.093	0.163	0.702
sss_affective	1st	37	10.43 ± 3.65		37	9.41 ± 3.65		0.230	0.623
sss_affective	2nd	20	10.65 ± 3.08	-0.134	20	8.42 ± 3.08	0.596	0.024	1.353
sss_behavior	1st	37	10.27 ± 3.78		37	8.76 ± 3.78		0.089	0.745
sss_behavior	2nd	20	10.02 ± 3.32	0.123	20	7.95 ± 3.32	0.395	0.052	1.018
sss_cognitive	1st	37	8.59 ± 3.88		37	7.89 ± 3.88		0.439	0.423
sss_cognitive	2nd	20	9.62 ± 3.24	-0.615	20	6.95 ± 3.24	0.566	0.011	1.604
sss	1st	37	29.30 ± 10.51		37	26.05 ± 10.51		0.188	0.758
sss	2nd	20	30.36 ± 8.68	-0.248	20	23.35 ± 8.68	0.633	0.012	1.639

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(102.54) = 0.19, p = 0.847, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.50 to 0.61)

2st

t(109.51) = 0.49, p = 0.623, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.56 to 0.93)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(98.71) = 0.22, p = 0.827, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.09 to 1.36)

2st

t(109.53) = 1.24, p = 0.217, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.60 to 2.62)

ras_confidence

1st

t(84.20) = 0.91, p = 0.366, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-1.25 to 3.36)

2st

t(109.21) = 1.06, p = 0.293, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-1.28 to 4.20)

ras_willingness

1st

t(83.59) = 0.93, p = 0.356, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.49 to 1.36)

2st

t(108.92) = 1.75, p = 0.083, Cohen d = -0.93, 95% CI (-0.13 to 2.06)

ras_goal

1st

t(86.66) = 0.22, p = 0.825, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.29 to 1.61)

2st

t(109.86) = 2.00, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.98, 95% CI (0.01 to 3.54)

ras_reliance

1st

t(81.98) = 0.64, p = 0.525, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.86 to 1.67)

2st

t(107.81) = 1.27, p = 0.208, Cohen d = -0.71, 95% CI (-0.53 to 2.41)

ras_domination

1st

t(94.52) = -2.03, p = 0.045, Cohen d = 0.67, 95% CI (-2.08 to -0.02)

2st

t(109.73) = 0.67, p = 0.502, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.87 to 1.77)

symptom

1st

t(78.03) = -0.98, p = 0.332, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-6.74 to 2.31)

2st

t(101.46) = -1.16, p = 0.251, Cohen d = 0.78, 95% CI (-7.93 to 2.09)

slof_work

1st

t(78.76) = 0.21, p = 0.833, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-2.04 to 2.53)

2st

t(103.17) = -0.16, p = 0.875, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-2.76 to 2.35)

slof_relationship

1st

t(82.15) = 0.45, p = 0.655, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-2.13 to 3.38)

2st

t(107.95) = 0.84, p = 0.402, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-1.84 to 4.57)

satisfaction

1st

t(85.37) = 1.93, p = 0.056, Cohen d = -0.81, 95% CI (-0.09 to 6.30)

2st

t(109.60) = 0.94, p = 0.348, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-2.01 to 5.66)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(80.66) = 1.13, p = 0.261, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-0.76 to 2.76)

2st

t(106.38) = -0.19, p = 0.851, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-2.20 to 1.82)

mhc_social

1st

t(83.41) = -0.45, p = 0.652, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-3.21 to 2.02)

2st

t(108.83) = -1.39, p = 0.168, Cohen d = 0.74, 95% CI (-5.24 to 0.92)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(83.93) = 0.71, p = 0.478, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-1.88 to 3.99)

2st

t(109.09) = -0.26, p = 0.792, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-3.95 to 3.02)

resilisnce

1st

t(85.05) = 0.59, p = 0.557, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.41 to 2.60)

2st

t(109.51) = 0.96, p = 0.338, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-1.24 to 3.57)

social_provision

1st

t(88.12) = 1.23, p = 0.221, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.53 to 2.26)

2st

t(109.98) = 1.98, p = 0.050, Cohen d = -0.94, 95% CI (-0.00 to 3.43)

els_value_living

1st

t(83.11) = 1.89, p = 0.063, Cohen d = -0.86, 95% CI (-0.07 to 2.61)

2st

t(108.65) = 1.49, p = 0.139, Cohen d = -0.80, 95% CI (-0.39 to 2.76)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(83.11) = 2.83, p = 0.006, Cohen d = -1.29, 95% CI (0.60 to 3.45)

2st

t(108.65) = 1.29, p = 0.199, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (-0.58 to 2.77)

els

1st

t(81.00) = 2.64, p = 0.010, Cohen d = -1.33, 95% CI (0.81 to 5.78)

2st

t(106.81) = 1.61, p = 0.110, Cohen d = -0.93, 95% CI (-0.53 to 5.18)

social_connect

1st

t(78.27) = -0.77, p = 0.442, Cohen d = 0.46, 95% CI (-6.09 to 2.69)

2st

t(102.05) = -1.21, p = 0.229, Cohen d = 0.80, 95% CI (-7.85 to 1.90)

shs_agency

1st

t(83.21) = 1.20, p = 0.233, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.90 to 3.66)

2st

t(108.71) = 1.20, p = 0.232, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (-1.06 to 4.31)

shs_pathway

1st

t(82.19) = 1.11, p = 0.269, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.81 to 2.86)

2st

t(107.99) = 0.38, p = 0.707, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.73 to 2.54)

shs

1st

t(81.85) = 1.23, p = 0.222, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (-1.48 to 6.29)

2st

t(107.70) = 0.90, p = 0.370, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-2.46 to 6.55)

esteem

1st

t(105.45) = -1.39, p = 0.166, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-1.11 to 0.19)

2st

t(109.62) = -0.62, p = 0.535, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-1.16 to 0.61)

mlq_search

1st

t(91.15) = 0.17, p = 0.863, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.41 to 1.68)

2st

t(109.94) = 0.48, p = 0.632, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-1.47 to 2.42)

mlq_presence

1st

t(88.14) = 0.17, p = 0.862, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.69 to 2.01)

2st

t(109.98) = 0.19, p = 0.848, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-2.06 to 2.50)

mlq

1st

t(89.08) = 0.19, p = 0.848, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-2.78 to 3.37)

2st

t(110.00) = 0.36, p = 0.723, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-3.13 to 4.50)

empower

1st

t(81.19) = 0.99, p = 0.324, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.92 to 2.76)

2st

t(107.02) = 0.49, p = 0.624, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-1.60 to 2.65)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(96.73) = 1.19, p = 0.236, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.47 to 1.87)

2st

t(109.61) = 0.48, p = 0.635, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.15 to 1.89)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(85.81) = -2.64, p = 0.010, Cohen d = 1.09, 95% CI (-3.37 to -0.47)

2st

t(109.71) = -1.40, p = 0.163, Cohen d = 0.70, 95% CI (-2.98 to 0.51)

sss_affective

1st

t(80.52) = -1.21, p = 0.230, Cohen d = 0.62, 95% CI (-2.72 to 0.66)

2st

t(106.20) = -2.29, p = 0.024, Cohen d = 1.35, 95% CI (-4.16 to -0.30)

sss_behavior

1st

t(84.44) = -1.72, p = 0.089, Cohen d = 0.75, 95% CI (-3.26 to 0.23)

2st

t(109.31) = -1.97, p = 0.052, Cohen d = 1.02, 95% CI (-4.15 to 0.02)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(79.57) = -0.78, p = 0.439, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-2.50 to 1.09)

2st

t(104.74) = -2.60, p = 0.011, Cohen d = 1.60, 95% CI (-4.70 to -0.63)

sss

1st

t(78.80) = -1.33, p = 0.188, Cohen d = 0.76, 95% CI (-8.11 to 1.62)

2st

t(103.26) = -2.55, p = 0.012, Cohen d = 1.64, 95% CI (-12.46 to -1.57)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(54.03) = 1.01, p = 0.631, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.29 to 0.87)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(51.46) = 0.81, p = 0.838, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.72 to 1.70)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(43.70) = 0.89, p = 0.760, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.92 to 2.37)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(43.41) = -0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-0.75 to 0.55)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(44.90) = 1.26, p = 0.426, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.42 to 1.82)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(42.64) = 2.41, p = 0.041, Cohen d = -0.74, 95% CI (0.16 to 1.81)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(49.00) = 1.85, p = 0.141, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.08 to 1.81)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(40.78) = -0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-3.00 to 1.73)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(41.12) = -1.88, p = 0.135, Cohen d = 0.58, 95% CI (-2.43 to 0.09)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(42.72) = -0.35, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-2.13 to 1.50)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(44.27) = -0.46, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-2.90 to 1.83)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(42.01) = -1.32, p = 0.385, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-1.79 to 0.37)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(43.32) = -0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-2.29 to 1.33)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(43.57) = -0.85, p = 0.799, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-2.95 to 1.20)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(44.11) = 1.01, p = 0.639, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.74 to 2.20)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(45.63) = -0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.21 to 1.03)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(43.17) = 0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.73 to 1.11)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(43.18) = -0.04, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.00 to 0.96)

els

1st vs 2st

t(42.18) = 0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.36 to 1.74)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(40.89) = -0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-2.85 to 1.82)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(43.22) = 0.70, p = 0.981, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.03 to 2.11)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(42.74) = -0.41, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.46 to 0.96)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(42.58) = 0.24, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-2.22 to 2.83)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(56.40) = 0.94, p = 0.704, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.38 to 1.05)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(47.18) = -0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.39 to 1.27)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(45.64) = -0.03, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.50 to 1.46)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(46.11) = -0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-2.61 to 2.44)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(42.26) = -1.12, p = 0.534, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-1.81 to 0.51)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(50.26) = -0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.29 to 0.94)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(44.48) = 0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.92 to 1.25)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(41.95) = -1.92, p = 0.122, Cohen d = 0.60, 95% CI (-2.01 to 0.05)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(43.82) = -1.29, p = 0.410, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-2.06 to 0.45)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(41.50) = -1.82, p = 0.152, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-1.98 to 0.10)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(41.14) = -2.04, p = 0.097, Cohen d = 0.63, 95% CI (-5.40 to -0.02)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(54.03) = 0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.42 to 0.74)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(51.46) = -0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-1.59 to 0.82)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(43.70) = 0.39, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.33 to 1.96)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(43.41) = -1.98, p = 0.109, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-1.28 to 0.01)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(44.90) = -1.65, p = 0.214, Cohen d = 0.50, 95% CI (-2.03 to 0.20)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(42.64) = 1.11, p = 0.549, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.37 to 1.28)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(49.00) = -1.35, p = 0.368, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-1.58 to 0.31)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(40.78) = 0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-2.30 to 2.43)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(41.12) = -1.16, p = 0.506, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.98 to 0.54)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(42.72) = -1.17, p = 0.493, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-2.87 to 0.76)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(44.27) = 0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.62 to 3.11)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(42.01) = 0.90, p = 0.746, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.60 to 1.56)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(43.32) = 1.21, p = 0.468, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.73 to 2.89)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(43.57) = 0.62, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.43 to 2.72)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(44.11) = 0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.31 to 1.63)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(45.63) = -1.69, p = 0.194, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-2.06 to 0.18)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(43.17) = 0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.64 to 1.19)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(43.18) = 1.89, p = 0.132, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-0.06 to 1.89)

els

1st vs 2st

t(42.18) = 1.52, p = 0.274, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.39 to 2.72)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(40.89) = 0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.58 to 3.09)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(43.22) = 0.37, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.28 to 1.86)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(42.74) = 0.62, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.84 to 1.58)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(42.58) = 0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.86 to 3.19)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(56.40) = 0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.56 to 0.86)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(47.18) = -0.60, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.72 to 0.93)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(45.64) = -0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.56 to 1.40)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(46.11) = -0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-3.00 to 2.05)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(42.26) = -0.44, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.42 to 0.91)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(50.26) = 0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.95 to 1.28)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(44.48) = -0.96, p = 0.683, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-1.60 to 0.57)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(41.95) = 0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.81 to 1.25)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(43.82) = -0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.51 to 1.01)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(41.50) = 1.98, p = 0.108, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-0.02 to 2.06)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(41.14) = 0.80, p = 0.860, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.63 to 3.75)

Pathway Summary

Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Measurement

Table

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Text

Likelihood ratio tests

Post hoc analysis

Table

Between group

Within treatment group

Within control group

Plot

Clinical significance